Secretly Naming Police Monitor Ignores Public

Last Friday, the Los Angeles City Council made one of its most important decisions in recent years: It approved the proposed monitor to oversee implementation of the federal consent decree to reform the Los Angeles Police Department. Unfortunately, the selection process was conducted in secret.

The public had no opportunity to express its views on this crucial matter. Neither the City Council nor any of its committees held a hearing on the matter to scrutinize the proposed “independent monitor” selection, Kroll Associates Inc., to determine its qualifications and fitness for this task. The burden is now on federal District Court Judge Gary Feess to ensure that Kroll has the experience and ability to serve in this role.

The consent decree between the Justice Department and Los Angeles is more than 100 pages long and contains dozens of reforms in policing. A key mechanism for ensuring enforcement is the selection of an “independent monitor” to track implementation of the reforms and to make regular reports to the federal judge overseeing the consent decree and city officials. If the monitor finds that the decree is not being implemented, the judge can order appropriate relief to ensure compliance.

In the wake of the Rampart scandal, the public needs to have confidence that real changes are being made by the LAPD, and this requires a monitor that can be trusted. Besides, the monitor involves a significant expenditure of public funds; the estimated cost is $11 million.

There was a large number of applicants for the position. Several have told me that secret interviews were conducted by representatives of the city and the federal Department of Justice. The applicants said they were asked detailed questions about how they planned to oversee the consent decree. There is no reasonable explanation why the public was excluded from hearing their answers. Several applicants told me that they thought some of the city’s representatives expressed hostility to aggressive enforcement of the consent decree.

The selection process did not need to be handled behind closed doors. This was not a personnel issue and no law enforcement secrets were being discussed. This was a policy choice.

Although approval and implementation of the consent decree is long overdue, surely a few additional days could have been taken to allow for the public to learn of the choice and express its views. For example, Kroll Associates is from outside California. Is this desirable? Who is Michael Cherkasky, its president and chief executive, who was selected as the “primary monitor”? What are his views about policing and the decree? What experience does Kroll have in this area and especially what is the experience and views of those who actually will be doing the work in L.A.? Who were the other applicants? Why were Kroll and Cherkasky considered better?

A nominee for a judgeship, or even a general manager or a commissioner for a city department, must publicly answer questions. There is always an opportunity for public participation in such processes. Sometimes public scrutiny causes the rejection of a nominee and other choices to be made.

Judge Feess must not simply rubber-stamp the selection of Kroll Associates. Given the lack of scrutiny by the City Council and the public, he now must conduct a searching, public inquiry to ensure that a highly qualified and appropriate monitor has been selected.

Conducting the process in a secret way reflects a profound distrust of the public and a desire to keep complete control in the hands of a few people working behind closed doors. Mayor Richard Riordan and the members of the City Council who designed and participated in this process should be ashamed of themselves.